The core trait of a scientific mind is that when its commitments clash with evidence, evidence rules. On that count, what grade do liberals deserve? Fail, given their reaction to the latest evidence on universal health care, global warming, and universal preschool.

The policy world was rocked recently by a New England Journal of Medicine study showing that Medicaid doesn't improve the health care outcomes of uninsured individuals.

The study compared the health status of adults who were randomly enrolled in Oregon's Medicaid program with those who weren't. It found that two years after patients received Medicaid, "no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes" such as hypertension, cholesterol and diabetes resulted. Coverage did, however, lower depression rates and reduced financial strain.

How should a scientifically-inclined liberal have reacted? By acknowledging that if the findings hold in subsequent years, Obamacare's plan to use Medicaid to achieve its universal coverage goal—at half-a-trillion-dollar price tag over a decade—would need to be reconsidered.

Some liberals such as Ray Fisman of Slate did just that—but they were the exception. Most liberals either dissed the study's methodology after praising it previously (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones) or ignored its core findings and reported the good news (Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic) or attacked Obamacare's opponents as heartless fools (Paul Krugman of The New York Times).

For two decades, progressives have castigated those questioning global warming as "deniers."

But the Economist, once firmly in the alarmist camp, recently acknowledged that global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15 years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared.

This may be because existing models have overestimated the planet's sensitivity. Or because the heat generated is sinking to the ocean bottom. Or because of something else completely.

How should a scientifically inclined liberal react to this trend? By inhaling deeply and backing off on economy-busting mitigation measures till science offers clearer answers.

And how have liberals reacted? By sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting la-la-la.

The New York Times editorialized this week that the European Union should redouble its efforts to salvage its floundering carbon trading system. This scheme forces companies that exceed their greenhouse gas emission quota to either reduce production or spend gobs to buy spare quotas from others.

The Washington Post's Brad Plumer penned an essay noting that atmospheric carbon emissions are now approaching levels only seen in the Pliocene Era—without bothering to note that they aren't producing the same warming this time. Most priceless, however, was Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science.

He spilled serious ink in Mother Jones defending the highly questionable "hockey stick" graph—the core evidence of global warmists—which allegedly showed a sudden warming spike in the last century after a millennium of steady temperatures.

Liberals don't just want universal health insurance—they also want universal preschool. But the evidence for government-funded preschool is even more dubious than for government-funded health care.

Numerous studies on Head Start, the federal pre-K program for poor kids, show that its reading and math gains virtually evaporate by fourth grade. And the latest evidence from Oklahoma and Georgia, two states that implemented universal pre-K in the 1990s, only confirms this.

Oklahoma's high-school graduation rates have dropped since it embraced UPK and Georgia's remain stagnant. The average reading score of Oklahoma's fourth graders on the NAEP—the national report card—dropped four points between 1998 and 2011.

Georgia just reached the national average. The NAEP reading gap between black and white children in Oklahoma was 22 points in 1992. In 2011? The same. Georgia had a 28-point spread in 1992. In 2011? Twenty-three points.

How should President Barack Obama, who had promised evidence-based policy, have responded? By renouncing his commitment to UPK. What did he do? Jetted to Georgia and declared its program a national model.

It's not that conservatives don't have ideological fixations that are impervious to science. However, they don't pretend to don the mantle of science. Liberals do.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

378 responses to “The Myth of the Scientific Liberal”

Evan. I just agree… Patrick`s report is impressive… last tuesday I bought a great Volkswagen Golf GTI after I been earnin $8978 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe $10,000 last-munth. it’s realy the easiest-job Ive ever done. I began this 3 months ago and immediately got me over $73 per-hr. I went to this website grand4.com (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

The only problem with this essay is that the “scientific mind” has, historically been just as prone to cling to well loved if factually challenged theories as any other human mind. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t challenge Liberals (or Conservatives, or what-have-you) on matters of proof.

A “science” is simply something spouted by a person who? And, the more of these at the same time that you can do, the better, kinda like juggling? ‘A) wears a suit and a tie, or ‘B) speaks in a snazzy foreign, not-trashy-American, sophisticated accent, or ‘C) speaks using a TON of specialized jargon, or ‘D) espouses something ending in “?ology” like “Scientology” (see, it even has “Scient” in it , OK?!?!)? But please be advised, Scientology has now been superseded by? Drum roll, please? SCIENFOOLOGY!!!! To learn more about Scienfoology, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ .

Semi OT but related to liberals preferring the approved narrative to real science: Thomas Sowell recently came out with Intellectuals and Race, which pulls much of its content from the race-related chapters of Intellectuals and Society but also adds more, and I’m about halfway through it as of this morning. It’s excellent so far.

The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade ? the 1990s ? researchers said Tuesday in a report providing fresh evidence that the planet may be warming at a potentially disastrous rate.

In 2009, global surface temperatures were 1.01 degree above average, which tied the year for the fifth warmest year on record, the National Climatic Data Center said.

And that helped push the 2000-2009 decade to 0.96 degree above normal, which the agency said “shattered” the 1990s record value of 0.65 degree above normal.

I understand why conservatives want to burnish the lousy science record of their dim colleagues but this is ridiculous. Creationism is undoubtedly the stupidest shit ever perpetuated on the science community.

We have, for some areas of the Earth, one hundred years of temperature data, which is supposedly reliable. That’s it. No more. That’s nothing on a geologic time scale. We have no real data for anything before 1850 CE.

Being smart entails knowing what you don’t know. People claiming to know everything, especially people claiming they know better than the world’s experts about their own field, are either the world’s greatest geniuses or incredibly stupid. I’ll let the peanut gallery decide about you.

I know I don’t know the mathematics behind quantum physics. That doesn’t mean I assume I know that the universe is made of blackberry jam, or that my ignorance has anything whatsoever to do with the things scientists have figured out.

But asking a libertarian to be humble in his approach to his own knowledge is like asking a dog not to lick his balls.

I taught quantum in college. That puts me a step above you when it comes to judging what you call “science.”

I’ve taken quantum in college. That puts me a step above you when it comes to judging what you call “science.”

The basic argument against these experts and their consensus is that science means something. It means experimentation with repeatable results.

That does not exist is climate “science.”

There are no repeatable experiments, the models fail, and the predictions fail.

By your criterion, paleontology and astronomy aren’t science. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the consensus of climate scientists, you can’t judge it by experimental science standards. It must be judged according to historical science standards, and let’s face it, the data are horribly incomplete.

“Science” is the Latin word for knowledge. “Science” is a method of analysis. It doesn’t tell us anything; it doesn’t care if you’re discussing astronomy or rectal sores or whatever else you want to label as “science”. The scientific method is a standard for rational analysis of questions.

I’ve had people “teach” me stuff in college they were unqualified to teach. The point of science is that it is NOT concerned with argument by authority (“I took or taught quantum in college”) and not concerned with argument by emotion. If anything someone says smells of reference to authority or appeals to emotion it’s probably as much bullshit as the doctrine of any religion.

I hope you understand that argument from authority has no scientific validity and are simply saying that rhetorically.

Could you explain how sarcasmic’s criterion would have any bearing on astronomy or paleontology? Both have falsifiability. Darwinian histories are testable in many ways. So are astrophysical concepts, as Max Planck and Arthur Eddington proved. Such is not the case with assertions regarding climate. There are proxies for historical global temperatures, but they are grossly imprecise on the scale Michael Mann would desire, do not produce evidence in support of AGW, and have a lousy history of predictive power (How many climate refugees are there in the world?). You are very correct that the data are horrible.

I’ve told Tony this exact same point–AGW theory has absolutely nothing to do with science–every time shows up on a climate thread. He never responds.

@ Tony|7.12.11 @ 5:52PM|# How can we possibly know if all of biology or physics isn’t similarly infected by the evil liberal bias?

My answer: Because in large part their results are based on the scientific method: Background studied, hypothesis formed, experiment designed, experiment executed, results analyzed, hypothesis either supported or refuted. The experiment can be replicated, others can do the same and see for themselves the results. The results are verifiable. The hypotheses have predictive value and are falsifiable.

This is not what is happening in the AGW debate. The hypotheses are not tested with replicatable experiments, but are reached by means of models. The validity of the models is an unknown although there is a “consensus” that they are valid. (N.B.: “Consensus” is not a part of the scientific method.) The hypotheses have no predictive validity. Global temperatures are well below what even the most conservative IPCC estimates speculated temperatures would be today. Ocean temperatures are well below where James Hansen’s predictions place them. IPCC predictions that global warming would cause less rainfall across Africa have been proven wrong. Same for predictions on declining rainfall in India, on thinning and disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, on the slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), and on and on. The models don’t even predict the present accurately–it exaggerates global warming from 1850 to 2005 by 67%.

Finally, nothing is falsifiable. Global warming leads to drought, but when drought doesn’t materialize, the adherents say that is also a possible outcome of global warming. It leads to record rainfalls which don’t materialize–which is also proof. It leads to higher temperatures, obviously, and that is used as a form of proof. But when record cold materializes, that is also proof–global warming causes record cold. It causes more hurricanes, but when we have seasons of fewer rather than more hurricanes that proves nothing. When we see an increase in the number of reported tornadoes, AGW adherents claim global warming predicts more and more severe tornadoes; when it turns out that the increase is due to our improved ability to detect smaller tornadoes, but that the frequency of stronger tornadoes has decreased, that’s not proof that global warming is not occurring. When there is no actual warming for 12 years, that is also not proof–but just to set the record straight, the adherents change their tune from “global warming” to “climate change”.

Another field that does not rely on the scientific method, in which no claims are falsifiable? Religion.

Quantum physics has predictive, repeatable, falsifiable factors. That’s what makes it science. I know nothing about climatology specifically, other than the basic fact that not one workable model exists, and that it rises to none of the above requirements for something to be “empirical”.

We don’t need to be scientists to recognize what is and is not science. Consensus, for example, is most certainly not science. It’s a warm blanket for idiots.

Climatology is different than quantum theory. Like astronomy, cosmology, or paleontology, you can’t run experiments. You CAN make predictions about what’s going to be found and have your theories falsified or strengthened based on what you predicted. But, no, you can’t do repeatable experiments- but that doesn’t make it not-science. It’s science.

Having your models get falsified and then not abandoning them- that’s not science.

“Climatology is different than quantum theory. Like astronomy, cosmology, or paleontology, you can’t run experiments. You CAN make predictions about what’s going to be found and have your theories falsified or strengthened based on what you predicted. But, no, you can’t do repeatable experiments- but that doesn’t make it not-science. It’s science.

Having your models get falsified and then not abandoning them- that’s not science.”

I got a little loosey-goosey with the wording of my post (it was quite unscientific), so let me re-phrase that…the conclusions are non-scientific. If you can’t account for how the clouds work in your model, and your model has no real repeatable, predictable conclusions, your conclusions based on that model are not empirical, and should not be treated as hard science, and certainly should not be treated as a basis for further conclusions.

I probably dicked that up, too, but I’m going with “language is subjective”.

This is pretty much Tony’s MO: he wants to have a conversation in which he can alternately try to make some point, and then insult libertarians in general, and perhaps you in particular. When you reply, it’s an opportunity for him to spew filth again. He engages in argumentum ad nauseam just for the opportunity to repetitively make the argumentative equivalent of a monkey throwing its own poop, and he claims his goal is to improve mankind by debunking/winning over libertarians to progressivism. I’m embarrassed for the times I took him as a serious person.

Actually Tony, if we go with your theory of ‘not knowing is wisdom’ than I should think liberalism is an epic fail on this front since it seems rooted in projections and presumptions to me. Libertarians are more into the notion of ‘give me the power that which I cannot change.’

In other words, liberals make a living of making policy about stuff they know shit about.

You think you’re being sarcastic, but unfortunately you’re not. The philosophy of science has gone full primacy of consciousness in its metaphysical orientation, which = the primacy of models over reality.

Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries.

Lol. So on a graph that covers a 30 year period, ignore the entire latter half, and only examine that value-corrected first half because, after value-correcting, the model works quite well for those years! The exception to this rule would be when stating that the current decade, despite taking place within the short-term 15-year window for which trends are not usefully predictable, was conclusively the warmest decade in centuries… based on all that high-quality satellite data we have from the 1700 and 1800’s.

Government control of nearly everything is the solution, AGW is the last and best problem they were able to find. Before that it was the “population bomb.” Same solution, the problem changes – if AGW loses more steam, expect them to find yet another problem in need of the same solution.

Even if the “A” is real as well, what matters is that there’s a rather large political faction out there with a dubious history of exploiting genuine environmental concerns to further its unrelated agenda, and that faction is and will continue to exaggerate the effects of a warming planet to their own self-serving ends.

That alone, regardless of the science, justifies any opposition, even the people that deny the “GW” part.

Sometimes you are a total ass, but that is a reasonable position to take, I’d say. The biggest problem with the mainstream AGW people is that they think that scientific consensus means that their policy ideas are also necessarily the right ones or will do any good at all.

It’s not fucking reasonable to assert that human activity is the driver of climate fluctuations. It’s an unproven assertion, and it might not be scientifically provable due to the fact that it’s not possible to construct a second planet to act as a control.

No, no, no. We can conduct a second planet. In a computer. Because we already know all there is to know about the climate, the planet, and the universe. But you should totally give us more tax money so we can continue to study all of these things that we already know everything about.

I don’ think that the level of scientific certainty about AGW is nearly as good as they claim it to be. But it seems plausible. And as long as you don’t promote massively disruptive policies to try to fix it, I’m not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you if you do believe it. A lot of people on the skeptical side of this argument are idiots as well and it would help the cause of liberty a lot more to focus on how much better free markets will deal with any problem that arises because of climate change than to argue about why it happens and whose fault it is.

It’s not that I’m convinced that we couldn’t possibly be contributing to the warming of the planet, though the evidence that it is likely to be catastrophic seems to be fading quickly, but what that means, how serious it is, whether we can extrapolate trends, etc., are huge, not-really-answered questions.

And always check to see what someone means by “free market” when they use that phrase. It sometimes doesn’t mean free market at all.

You misunderstand me. Nothing is scientifically provable because science has nothing to do with proof. Only finding evidence for or against a theory.

I know people use the word “proof” that way, but I think it is better not to. No scientific theory is proven in the sense that it is definitely true and final. The unfalsifiable nature of a scientific proposition means that it can never be proven, only better supported by evidence.

“God created the world in six days.” Because my infallible book says so. How do I know it’s infallible? It says so in the book.

Evidence. We need evidence. Not models that don’t agree with reality. In other words, it’s not enough to say the planet is warming. There must be proof that humans are causing it at a greater than natural rate, and that means proof that is verifiable by observation, particularly if that means completely reworking the economy in response.

If it were demonstrated that the warming is being caused naturally, why would that change anything? People are more likely to survive a natural catastrophe than a manmade catastrophe with the exact same results? I don’t get it.

There’s been rather extensive research on this topic, and if you don’t think there’s plenty of evidence of human contribution, then you just aren’t doing your homework. There’s only so much I can do if you refuse to just go read about where the fucking science is right now.

We have, for some areas of the Earth, one hundred years of temperature data, which is supposedly reliable. That’s it. No more. That’s nothing on a geologic time scale. We have no real data for anything before 1850 CE.

There are a few thermometers that go back to the 1600s and a few more that started in the 1700s but it’s only a handful.

I have an oven clock and a microwave clock. Most times I look at them they say the same time. Sometimes they disagree by a minute (sorry about anthropomorphizing my clocks 🙁 ) In order to use “thermometers” as sources of data, they MUST be exactly calibrated to the degree of measurement of every single thermometer that supplied data to the researchers who use that data. That means, since “the consensus” believes it can generalize about the planets atmosphere to the TENTHS of degrees over a thousand years, each measurement device MUST be calibrated to the tenths of degrees in order for the conclusions to be valid. . . .

. . . Very few thermometers (forget “ice cores” and medieval thermometers) before the 1980s were calibrated to each other (invalid data); necessarily measured to the tenths of degrees (invalid data); or can be shown to have been in reasonably similar environs (not up against a hot building versus out in a dirt field). So the vast majority of data the Consensus use are invalid as information that would lead one to claim that in the next hundred years the global atmospheric temperature (representing tens of billions of cubic miles within 5 miles of sea level)will or won’t increase permanently by 2-4 degrees. It is bullshit. If you don’t get this, you don’t get the scientific method.

After learning a little about the universe with supernovas, black hole, how a solar system is created, etc., “global warming” seems pretty tame. If I remember right, the current theory is that about 65 million years ago and asteroid crashed into the Earth and destroyed 70% of life. I find that hat just a tad more interesting.

That’s why the ignorant frauds no longer call it “global warming.” They now refer to it simply as “climate change.” Since the climate has never done anything other than change they won’t be wrong this time!

“The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade ? the 1990s ? researchers said Tuesday in a report providing fresh evidence that the planet may be warming at a potentially disastrous rate.”

None of which refutes a word of this article. The article did not claim that AGW was a fraud or not occurring, nor did it refute any claims that warming has occurred. What it did do is highlight some data which calls into question the models which predict catastrophic levels of warming. Specifically it now appears that the climate sensitivity is significantly below what was previously thought to be the lower limit and we are really only looking at 2 – 3 degrees Fahrenheit in additional warming over the next century, well below the 5 degrees Celsius catastrophe previously predicted.

“Creationism is undoubtedly the stupidest shit ever perpetuated on the science community.”

I am not in any way, shape form or fashion a creationist, but at least it has the whole “grandiosity/coherence of it all” thing in its camp, which has seemed like at least a reasonable argument to many of the greatest scientific minds of today and the past.

What evidence is there for the benefit of centralized economies in smoothing recessions and creating equality? None. 0 for trillions. Ditto gun regulation to reduce crime. There ARE dumber things than creationism. At least creationism isn’t outright defied by literally every piece of evidence in existence.

If a consensus of really smart scientists says something is true, then who are you to point to evidence that contradicts them? I mean, they’re like experts and stuff! And they have a consensus! They voted! Everyone knows that a consensus trumps contradictory evidence! Especially when you look at the source! I mean, they’re like pawns of the corporations and stuff!

And your continued insistence on making bed with climate change deniers will inevitably leave libertarianism a brittle husk on the ash heap of history where it belongs, assuming there’s anyone left to dump it there. There is nothing quite so evil as the delusion that puts a utopian ideology about fucking tax rates in the way of responding to the worst environmental catastrophe humanity has ever known.

Here is the “about” page for the site you linked, MonoTony. Could you indicate which of the people there are climate scientists per your requirement, as opposed to scientifically-competent people who are nonspecialists (much like many people here), or people “interested in climate research”?

There is no such thing as an “expert” in any subject on this earth where the veracity of the claims made by said alleged “expert” cannot be unequivocally quantified as absolutely 100% accurate by measurement in the physical world.

“You should defer to experts on the subjects of their expertise.” Tony is right in this. A man with a degree in Theology (an expert, right?) told me I’d better get right with Jesus or I’d go to hell so I got right with Jesus and now I’m saved. Halleluja Glory Glory Amen.

Too fucking funny. You’re not even trying anymore, are you? And by the way, I don’t think too many of us here deny that the climate has changed many many times over earth’s history, alternating between cold glacial periods and warmer interglacial periods. The point is that you and your ilk have failed to prove that the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is anthropogenic, rather than a natural cycle; especially in light of the fact that all of the warming models have failed spectacularly over the last 15 years.

But natural warming cycles happen over much longer timescales than the century or so in which current warming has spiked. What’s scary about that is that the faster an environmental change happens, the more species just drop dead rather than seeing their ancestors adapt.

Look at the slope of the rise in temperatures from 1910 to 1940. Very similar to the steep rise in the 1980-2000 time frame. The argument that the more recent is due to man has NOT been proved beyond all doubt.

It is pretty clear that the earth has warmed significantly more rapidly than can be explained through natural phenomena recently and that the only real explanation is Man Made causes with the production of greenhouse gasses being chief among them. Further there is little to no doubt that greenhouse gasses do influence the planets temperature and at some level would render the earth too hot to support life.

However that only accounts for SOME of the warming, it also appears that some of it is from entirely natural causes.

What remains to be solved is just how much of the warming is caused by greenhouse gasses and how much more of it can we expect and then what the impacts of that level of warming will be.

There is no scientific consensus on any of these questions and when you talk to the real climate scientists they will admit as much.

Right now the best evidence shows a climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree for each doubling of the CO2 level, well less than the 2.5 degrees that the alarmists considered to be the likely scenario which means that we are unlikely to see even 4 deg c of warming forget the 7 to 8 that some were predicting and with only 2 to 3 degrees likely over the next century mitigation makes a hell of a lot more sense than a crash course to oblivion trying to forestall it.

But we are barely addressing the issue at all in policy. Calling even market-based energy reforms (which will be necessary even if there were no warming since we’re using finite resources as fuels) a “crash course to oblivion” doesn’t help anything.

Ah baloney. Please define “significantly more rapidly than can be explained through natural phenomena”.

Anyone who believes that needs to explain why temps went DOWN from the 1940’s to the mid 1070’s. Have you ever looked at a sine wave? Depending on where you start measuring, the trend can be up or down.

You got nuthin’.

More bullshit: “the only real explanation is Man Made causes with the production of greenhouse gasses being chief among them.”

Another “argument from ignorance”: the only way that line of thinking can begin to work is if we already knew ALL the sources of the historical variations of the earth’s temperatures over the last 4 billion years, or even the last 100,000 years.

The short answer is: we don’t know. Why because we’re dealing with a multi-factorial, non-linear chaotic system.

Only a fool would think we can narrow climate variations down to one factor.

Tony| 5.14.13 @ 10:58AM |# “Your bullshit talking points are like 10 years old dude, at least.” Shithead, that mirror is gonna get you.

“Yes, it’s a proved fact that recent warming is caused by human activity.” There is zero proof, regardless of claims made by you, shithead, or anyone else. You are not anywhere near the intellectual acuity to understand the term, shithead.

Assuming human civilization survives relatively intact, I predict libertarian and all the other dogmatisms that aligned themselves with the denier crowd for political reasons will be considered on par with the various other dead dogmatisms that contributed to massive human misery, some of them quite successfully in their time.

I predict libertarian and all the other dogmatisms that aligned themselves with the denier crowd for political reasons will be considered on par with the various other dead dogmatisms that contributed to massive human misery, some of them quite successfully in their time.

You mean like socialism? Because socialists have an unmatched record of death and misery.

This is a man, ladies and gentlemen, who thinks people who hoard guns and hard currencies because they think their government may either collapse or do something sinister are paranoid batshit crazy conspiracy theorists. The same man who just told you that the entire global human species is literally, with no exaggeration, in danger of annihilation due to global warming caused by human activity.

Ayn Rand couldn’t have written a more one-dimensional stereotypical progtard.

Tony, I’m sufficiently humble enough and therefore not arrogant enough to know that Mother Nature is far more powerful than these puny hands and meek policies.

That’s what intrigues me in all this. Not if there’s warming or not (and I really don’t give a shit mostly because I don’t think we’re at the root of the problem. To think this is too be supremely arrogant and delusional – white man’s burden for the environment if you will) but that we actually think changing fucking habits ‘a little at a time’ using fucking sophomoric phrases like ‘we have to start somewhere’ is gonna impact anything.

“Just ask yourself, hypothetically, what if the science is right? What responsibility do you have for all the death and misery that will come?”

Wonder why it is that you never ask yourself what happens if all the top down, utopian policies you want are put into place and the same result that happened in other top down utopias (famine, pogroms, mass killings, etc) happen? How do you feel being responsible for that?

Yeah, shithead, the difference between Hong Kong’s prosperity and Red China’s starvation was just chance, right, shithead? Oh, and then when the Red Chinese decided to liberalize the economy and things immediately got better, that was just chance, right, shithead? How stupid do you wish to appear, shithead? You’re dumber than dirt now.

There is the Church of Earth Sciences, whose dogma holds that Gaia doesn’t like her black milk being burned for fuel. There is Our Lady of Life Sciences, which teaches us that unlikely death from pesticides is less natural and therefore less desirable than possible death from malaria. And we have the Brotherhood of Social Sciences, which really just enjoys blind faith on the economics of His Holiness, Baron Keynes.

I am reminded of the South Park two-parter with Richard Dawkins and what a future of scientific sectarianism would look like.

The one of the key traits of a modern liberal is a complete rejection of logic, scientific method, and history. They are absolutely unshakably convinced of their theses – and don’t care when they are disproved. Instead of molding their world-view to fit reality, they seek new (cooked) data to prove their unworkable ideas.

That’s why debating them is impossible – any fact that collides with their worldview is rejected.

Luckily, their blindness makes them highly susceptible to satire and ridicule.

Any “fact” that disagrees with the consensus is just a lie coming from some profit mongering corporation!

I mean, the experts have voted! Who are you do question the experts? The democratic process has been followed, and the results are clear! AGW is real! The experts said so! They’re so smart so they must be right!

Science is not a democratic process. But the fact that almost all scientists in a particular field agree about something is not an irrelevant fact itself. It means any contrarian has a lot of work to do. And I’m not talking about reading denier websites and nodding your head.

By the time we know what the right policy is, it will be too late! That one island nation that is pretty much one big phosphorous mine will go underwater! They will have to move either to a hellhole slightly to moderately more inhabitable than their present hellhole!

If you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads, what is the probability that the next flip will be heads?

That’s the flaw in your argument. Consensus in the scientific fields more often than not follow an established orthodoxy because of information cascades. They don’t all do the evaluation of the question. They assume the science is correct based on credibility. But, if you study scientific history you’ll see many many examples of new research overturning conventional assumptions.

Stick to the law, dude, you’re way out of your league here. But it’s funny to watch you wig-out.

This is nothing but a conspiracy theory without some evidence. You’re making a positive claim too, you just don’t have anything to back it up. “Facts are negotiable until I GregMax decide to trust them” is not science.

The way to break the consensus is simple. Come up with a good scientific argument, publish.

So far, zero. Failure every time. And now you denialists are trying to claim that your failure is evidence in your favor. “We haven’t convinced anyone who knows about this? There’s a consenus! Consensus ain’t science! What, are we going to trust experts who ain’t doing science but just building consensus? Of course not! Failure is success! Our lies are now true!”

Is that supposed to mean something, Buttwipe? It’s like asking all the scientists in the former Soviet Union if they were members of the party.

If I wanted to know the opinion of an expert on public policy or economics, the LAST person I would ask would be a scientist, precisely because being one does NOT make one also an expert on public policy or economics, just like a doctor in physics is not going to be an expert in medicine; or plumbing, for that matter.

It’s so cute how rightwing dogmatists have appropriated the language of secularism and the left. Intelligent design proponents thought they were being awfully clever too when they talked about the alleged fact of irreducible complexity. Nobody with half a brain bought it, of course.

I just published a paper on ways to improve the activity of antibiotics in topical treatments. But my collaborator is having a hard time getting grant money (despite 30 papers over the last 6 years) due to all of the money being poured down the ratholes of climate change research and green energy fiascos. So, no I don’t “deny” science. I practice it. And I resent that people doing crappy, speculative science that have a poor record of projections get all the money and cause a lot more to be wasted while I am called a denier.

“What I’ve read about what they think I’m saying is not what I’ve said. I’m not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No.”

It sure is. How can libertarianism be both heartless and utopian at the same time? No one says that everyone will have equal outcomes in a free market or that charity will not be necessary, just that it will be better than the alternative. It’s just that proglodytes can’t bear the uncertainty of not knowing how things will turn out.

So they want to try to plan and regulate everything without realizing that it can’t be planned and will have unintended consequences. They actually believe that they can legislate a utopia but then they call us utopians. Same way as they actually believe a conspiracy theory that big oil and Koch brothers are behind all libertarian and “denier” activities and then they call us conspiracy theorists. And they don’t care about the Soros money, which makes them hypocrites as well.

The key to understanding this phenomenon is to understand that proglodytes never exactly embraced science, the structured analysis of empirical evidence to arrive at testable hypotheses. The entire ideology rests on technocracy, the notion that all society should defer to the rule of a specialized (presumably progressive) elite who would order society in a more efficient way. They treat this as respect for science and talk about it as such. Of course, it isn’t. But, it certainly SOUNDS scientific. If you don’t believe me, consider the comments on this very thread from Choney and Shriek. They consistently either assert or appeal to the authority of the scientific community. But, that’s technocracy, not science. Science would consist of marshaling evidence and demonstrating patterns in it.

Tony is exactly the sort of slimy, disgusting piece of shit who would have been at the forefront of the eugenics movement if he’d been born a little sooner. Putting a veneer of “science” on the atrocities you wish to commit via public policy is the most comforting method of totalitarianism since the Catholic church lost its patronage in Europe.

The first time he requested it, it took 6 months and when it showed up it was blank.

They tried again, it required multiple calls from the county clerk to the state explaining it, but it finally arrived correctly. The person with the state apparently couldnt figure out why the computers wouldnt take it properly.

I am a radical market and social liberal. More like Ayn Rand than anyone here

I don’t think so. You’re instead a mountebank and a cheat, an economics-illiterate liberal disguised as a free-market advocate. At least Tony does not hide his credentials; he’s crazy as fuck but he’s much more honest than you.

It wouldn’t be so bad if what society has become fixated on was actually science. Science, as experimentation with predictable and repeatable results, has taken a back seat to politics, as in a consensus among people who call themselves scientists.

Supposed we stipulated that AGW was happening at a catastrophic rate, and the U.S.’s enlightened progs manage to push the U.S.’s emissions from a 20% reduction to a 50% reduction with only a little destruction to the economy. So, what do we (U.S. Europe) do about any refusal by the Chinese or Brazilians or Indians or various non-barbaric African countries to slow down or reverse their emissions? Would you (the AGW believers) advocate going to war over this in order to save the planet???

I think that is the best argument to counter the real true believers. I don’t know if I’ve changed any minds, but except for the real misanthropes who wouldn’t mind killing half the world’s population no one has much to say back. Even if the US and Europe and a few other rich places cut emissions significantly, there are still billions of people in the world who want to improve their standards of living and who will buy as much oil as they can get their hands on and develop as well as they can.

This comes up because war was necessary to put the Montreal Protocol into effect, to save the ozone layer, right? History repeats itself. Not another war to keep the planet in good shape! We can’t afford another round of bloodshed!

It comes up because if you actually believe the moonbat bullshit you claim to, going to war to prevent the ostensibly inevitable apocalyptic environmental catastrophe could easily be justified, and you’re probably insane enough to actually follow through with it.

The whole world has abandoned the fraud of AGW. The whole world, with the exception of the of the United States. No big surprise, we’ve always had more crackpots, nuts and idiots than anywhere else. In the past they’ve given us things like epic books, Hollywood movies, insane inventions, and Jonestown. But, unless I’m mistaken this new trend of trying to destroy the entire nation is a new one. In the past they’ve just ended themselves.

Seems we’ve been getting our information from differing sources. Not a surprise, there are so many sources out there.

No doubt about it the cult of AGW still has loyal believers around the world. However, from what I’ve been reading it’s our government here in the USA who is one of the last still on board. Many of the others have jumped ship.

Woah dude! I wasn’t convinced the first hundred times you said it, but now, in light of this persuasive argument and your unquestionable command of the facts, you’ve convinced me. I repent of my sins! I accept Michael Mann in my heart! Am I absolved now?

I think the problem to solve is more of the myth that scientific research is some how shielded by political motivations; both in how the results are interpreted and how the study is conducted.

The key is to establish the “rules” of the study and announce how it will be conducted and get buy in from the high-profile pundits on both sides that the results of that study will be considered accurate and policy may need to change based on those results.

Same concept as a arbitration process. Both parties agree on the 3rd party process and agree to the outcome.

The other benefit is that when the rules are published about how the sample will be selected, the methods and metrics to be used, etc. the study can be done in parallel and the results peer-reviewed by everyone to explain why a conservative financed study got different results from one ran by a liberal organization.

When the university involved has it’s own political motivations to keep the data in-house to receive the grants and glory that can also skew the results and cause room for dismissal by the party that doesn’t want to face facts.

While I do agree that the “Affordable” Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) will be any but and that universal preschool probably is not the best idea, particularly if it will have to follow the Dept. of Education’s “No child left behind” model, the fact is that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. There is NO ARGUMENT amongst the scientific community that global warming is occurring. To use a study by the Economist as proof is a terribly weak argument. Amongst those of us who publish peer-reviewed scientific literature, there is no question that global warming is occurring and that it is due to anthropogenic (human) activities…I should know, I work at NASA (yes, really).

It is valid to note that setting 1998 as an arbitrary starting point is a cherry pick. However, that retort diminishes in impact with every passing year. Further, global warming scientists are openly acknowledging global warming is tapering off, but are calling for a longer period of stagnation before we can draw conclusions.

However, models simply have not accurately predicted what has happened in the last two decades. Small sample size? Sure. Sometimes the coin comes up tails 4 times in a row.

The thing is, climate isn’t a coin. We do not know that each side has equal weight, and so, as the sample size increases, the questions grow stronger. That is not unreasonable.

First, looking at the LAST X number of years is NEVER a cherry pick as it may indicate a change in the trend line.

In this case, 15 years is the number of years climate scientists have used as the cutoff for when it statistically starts to invalidate their data.

Finally, your models obviously didn’t predict the level-off. You predicted a hockey stick. Your model is obviously flawed and you cannot explain it. Yet, you are positively certain that AGW is real based upon these models AND you claim we need to spend trillions of dollars, crippling the world’s economy, to head off certain doom.

Sorry pal. When your models actually sync up with the observable world, we’ll talk. Hell, we’ll talk when the global temps begin to rise again. Until then, your hysterics have shot your credibility in the foot.

“Who’s tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lover.”

That was from a WAPO twitter account.

The arrogance rooted in willing ignorance is staggering. STAGGERING.

You know what I find interesting? It’s a few books I pick up where collected stories and essays from philosophers, scientists etc. discuss issues. In almost every case most of what the real, true experts think runs CONTRARY to contemporary liberal orthodoxy which at this point is one step removed from a cult. Other than questions on religion, conservative thought is hardly the anti-science demon the left claims.

These aren’t your classical liberals. These are people that would be on the wrong side of history. My hunch.

They know, quite literally, nothing about the subject. Zip. Zero. Nada. More than that, they’re not interested in learning. They’re just entirely confident that GUNZ R BAD KTHXBYE, and that’s enough for them to fap their ban-boners.

There are precisely two reasons leftards have a hardon for AGW:

(1) It’s a “scientific” excuse for the massive central planning they want to do anyway; and, (2) It’s an opportunity to flatter their own hilariously-inflated self-regard by pretending to give a shit about TEH ENVIRONMENTZ.

Eugenics provided the rationale for much of the aforementioned sterilization. We had to purify the stock, but killing imbeciles and the like was inhuman, so some influential progressives recommended mandatory sterilization.

I very much think we should be guided by science, but I keep a good hold on my wallet and check to make sure I know where my arms and ammo are, whenever someone starts saying we should be RULED by science (or that our rulers should always defer to “the scientific consensus”).

Aaron. if you, thought Clarence`s comment is flabbergasting… last saturday I bought Mazda MX-5 after bringing in 5948 this past 4 weeks and a little over 10 grand this past month. it’s actualy the coolest job I’ve ever done. I started this eight months/ago and straight away started to bring home minimum 71, per-hour. I went to this site, …………http://www.Mojo55.com

Control what for El Nino/La Nina? And by “what” I mean which temperature set, with uncertainty in its measurement specified. And show your work on the periodicity, phase, and amplitude of El Nino/La Nina. And which model does this match, and how far back in time was the model run that predicted the last 15 years. Throw in how well the model predicts El Nino/La Nina. If the model was run in the last 15 years, forget it.

Dalmia wants total inaction on global warming because it isn’t constant and isn’t happening quite the same as predicted. As though all that stuff about radiative forcing, satellite measurements, the absorption spectra of gases should, can, or could possibly be thrown out because a curve made to conveniently sum up a complicated phenomenon has a pause in it like has happened before.

Dalmia gets an F for pretending that non-controversial physics is made controversial by something that rather obviously doesn’t call it into question. Scientific illiterates shouldn’t be commenting about science.

But seriously, the difference is that Dalmia actually called for inaction whereas Kalafut mentioned jack squat about economic planning. Inhale deeply and back off of mitigation until every little detail, relevant or not, is worked out.

Scientists: “If we keep putting more greenhouse gases in the air, all other things being equal, the troposphere will heat up.” Dalmia:”But but but you haven’t fully explained why this curve summarizing weather is kind of flat over the last 15 years. (If we don’t control for El Nino. Should I say that? No, it takes away from the narrative. Let’s leave that out of the article.) So let’s step back and take a deep breath and not do those mitigation things that I irrationally fear will “bust” the economy. Because your physics can’t be trusted unless you can totally explain the weather.

That’s denialism. And it’s stupid and that it makes the cut in the movement’s major magazine makes libertarianism look stupid. Why stupid? It’s like someone saying “well explain why my tumor is shaped like a potato. Ha! You doctors think you’re so smart, telling me I have cancer!” It’s an appeal to a nonsequitur. Willful nonsense or willful ignorance.

Sorry, pal, you remain a knave or a fool. Nowhere outside of your lefty fantasies, does Dalmia call for “doing nothing”, so the rest of what you suppose to be ‘argument’ is worthless. And putting words in her mouth and calling it a quote only demonstrates your stupidity or dishonesty; which is it? Now if you care to read what she wrote and discuss it, I’m sure you’ll get an answer. But right now, you’re pulling the standard lefty non-argument of beating on a strawman.

Funny that a free-marketeer like myself would be having lefty fantasies. Maybe I need to take my meds? Asshat.

Dalmia wants us to “inhale deeply and back off on…mitigation measures.”

That’s inaction.

And if you can’t distinguish between “putting words in [someone’s] mouth and calling it a quote” and offering a non-charitable, desultory paraphrase to illustrate someone else’s fail…well, I’m seeing a problem with reading comprehension here. Asperger’s? I kind of got used to aspies when I wasted time with the LP. It’s a valid excuse, however annoying.

Ben Kalafut| 5.14.13 @ 8:06PM |# “Funny that a free-marketeer like myself would be having lefty fantasies. Maybe I need to take my meds? Asshat.” You use those words and it seems you have no idea what they mean, shitstain.

“Dalmia wants us to “inhale deeply and back off on…mitigation measures.” That’s inaction.” Kinda left something out of that quote, didn’t you, shitstain. Qualifications which make it quite clear that you are a liar, shitstain.

“And if you can’t distinguish between “putting words in [someone’s] mouth and calling it a quote” and offering a non-charitable, desultory paraphrase to illustrate someone else’s fail…well, I’m seeing a problem with reading comprehension here. Asperger’s? I kind of got used to aspies when I wasted time with the LP. It’s a valid excuse, however annoying.” Shitstain, when you use quotation marks (“), you are quoting.

The burden of proof should fall on the party advocating multi-trillion dollar economic disruptions in the name of “mitigation” to prove that there is a problem in need of mitigating. Since we are ostensibly supposed to discard the last 15 years of data that don’t comport with the predictive models that preceded the time frame, and since we only have maybe 20 years worth of global temperature data of adequate quality to be useful for such analysis before that (call me a “denier”, but ice core samples and tree ring data don’t cut it in an analysis where tenths of degrees are major data points), at the very least, inaction is the only sensible course until a lot more data are collected and analyzed, and predictive models can be tested more rigorously. That’s the useful application of actual science. Not “denialism” (which isn’t actually a thing, or a real word). That you have to resort to trying to vaguely associate your detractors with Holocaust denial by inventing new words underscores the weakness of your argumentation. Scientists don’t use semantics to brow beat opponents. Useful idiots do.

As a courtesy, I’m submitting my own rebuttal to the specious claims re: liberals on climate science in this article. For a piece in what might be now the misnamed “Reason,” an article that calls the opposition’s intellectual integrity into question, it borders on amusing that the author’s own argument is rife with logical fallacies and outright errors.

I guess you conveniently skipped the parts about cherry picking and single-study syndrome.

So, no, that’s not it. Thank you for your attempt to misrepresent.

For that matter, if the author is going to engage in argument from authority, she might be well served to vet even reputable sources more thoroughly in the future. After all, it turns out The Economist misrepresents Hansen rather significantly. You might want to read my post again so you can enjoy the update.

Thank you for your attempt at misdirection. IF you have a point (and I’m quite sure you don’t), lay it out clearly and back it with evidence. So far, you’re said nothing other than ‘I can’t find a link to what you claim’.

You clearly haven’t read my post then. Why do you think you should have an opinion on it?

The updated version includes a link. The link is damning to her argument. Her logical fallacies are damning to her argument. And insofar as you keep attempting to defend it in your inimitable style, it seems even her supporters are damning to her argument.

Congratulations. You may not keep not reading things before you opine.

The link, and the link to the full quote from Hansen, isn’t damning to the argument, except to the extent that you didn’t understand what the argument was, I guess. The fact that the observed temperature and the predicted temperature depart merits additional research as to the cause, with Hansen making what appear to be some speculative initial hypotheses as to the cause. That most self-described “liberals” deny that the discrepancy merits examination, like you have, is a pretty good indication that they are not so much interested in the science, since science is all about solving those discrepancies, as the policy “solutions”, which seem to be forever the same.

Congrats though – looks like you got 5 comments on your piece. I hope your servers don’t crash from the unwashed masses flooding your page to marvel at your insight.

PM, you are more patient than am I, but I looked anyhow: “In fact, the quote above which appeared in The Economist is actually incomplete. Hansen’s report actually says, “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of net climate forcing.”” Ars is simply cherry-picking every damn excuse s/he can find to still claim the government should take over the economy. Ars is a watermellon

Thats it? Ballzinger points out that maybe The Economist is not acknowledging that there has been no warming, or not.

There has been no warming whether The Economist acknowledges it or not. The model’s predictions are wrong, whether The Economist, or anyone else, acknowledges it or not. By not acknowledging they are worse than Shikha makes them out.

Your courteous rebuttal simply isnt a rebuttal at all. Your rebuttal actually makes it seem even worse if they dont acknowledge it as it makes Shikha’s case stronger.

As a matter of fact Shikha, I am miffed that you didnt slam them harder. Stop going easy on these scum.

I think you missed the [citation needed] part. You make an extraordinary claim in the face of much evidence to the contrary. Would you care to cite a source, or should we just accept your argument on the authority of your username?

Ars Skeptica| 5.14.13 @ 9:49PM |# “If you can’t bother to read the post or refute a single claim in it with substance, by all means keep opining. I’m sure that looks really good for you :)”

You stupid shit, I’ve actually wasted time reading your blog. Your blog is easy to paraphrase: ‘I bleeve it and here’s every excuse I can find to show why it isn’t doing what I think it should be doing, and I still think the government should take over the world’. simply put, you’re an ignorant lefty asshole with no evidence and access to the web. Go away.

I can google ‘no warming since 1998’ just like you can. What I get in defense of AGW are ridiculous arguments claiming that cooling is part of warming. Yeah, just like cool water boils faster than hot water.

I looked at your link. It is mostly nonsense. From the first page;

First article – We dont know how much energy is stored in the ocean presently, much less have a historic record of it. The best we can do presently is guesstimate based on the magnitude of el ninos…which are the same as they always have been.

Second article – heavy snows….just a couple of years ago we were told that snow in new england would be a thing of the past that only our grandparents would remember.

Third article – So?

Fourth article – This is my favorite. Claiming that air is sealed in ice bubbles for any length of time is preposterous. It aint sealed and its composition is not what it was when it was sealed in there…even supposing that the bubble is an atmosphere sample and not a bubble formed after the fact.

I am bored with this. please dont link to that guy again if you want to have any credibility.

“Coverage did, however, lower depression rates and reduced financial strain” — How much is that worth? Slightly facetious follow up: How would the cost be formulated scientifically? And from who’s perspective would the price tag be set, someone with health insurance, or someone without? Both? Representative sample?

“Economy-busting mitigation measures” — How so? Where’s the data, the evidence, to support the claim?

“Oklahoma’s high-school graduation rates have dropped since it embraced UPK and Georgia’s remain stagnant. The average reading score of Oklahoma’s fourth graders on the NAEP — the national report card — dropped four points between 1998 and 2011.” — Fine. Where’s the control groups during those same times in those states? How do we know the rates would not have dropped further without UPK? Why would anyone argue “because science” when there is so clearly a lack of science to his or her argument?

Joe T.| 5.14.13 @ 8:14PM |# “Coverage did, however, lower depression rates and reduced financial strain” — How much is that worth?” First, those two criteria are obviously self-reported (since there is no objective way of measuring them), so salt is indicated. And then, yes, giving someone money most always lowers financial strain. The question here is ‘prove it is worth the cost’, not ‘disprove…’

“”Oklahoma’s high-school graduation rates have dropped since it embraced UPK and Georgia’s remain stagnant. The average reading score of Oklahoma’s fourth graders on the NAEP — the national report card — dropped four points between 1998 and 2011.” — Fine. Where’s the control groups during those same times in those states?” Nope. YOU provide the proof that it’s worth something. I see what you’re doing, and to be honest, it looks less than honest.

Sevo, just as it has been pointed out that you cant argue facts and logic with people whose beliefs arent based on facts or logic, you cant argue with a liberal about anything on their agenda. Their agenda isnt what they say it is. This is what leads them to argue absurdities.

Preschool isnt about improving education for them. It is taxpayer funded daycare for their voters. The more you point out that it doesnt improve education, the harder they will push for it.

And what grade do cosmotarians get? What do they say whenever a scientist proposes that, based on much evidence, intelligence isn’t equally endowed to the different races? What did they say to Richwine? OH MY GOD YOU SAID THAT HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT!

I think most people say “your theories are the worst kind of pseudo-intellectual drivel” and keep on trucking. There is no way to measure intelligence in a meaningful sense, because there’s really no way to define what intelligence is. The data you refer to are collected from tests that presume to measure a concept defined by those from a certain socioeconomic (religious, cultural, etc) frame of reference. I’d imagine if you told a nomadic tribesman to design a test to measure smarts, you and I would perform abyssmally and be considered monumentally stupid by their standards. So, in summary, you’re an idiot.

I’ll disagree. ‘Murcan is right that the average IQ of this race is more or less than the average IQ of that race. So what? I’m not dealing with an ‘average’; I’m dealing with the mug right in front of my face. And ‘Murcan is one of the most ignorant I’ve encountered. Is ‘Murcan ‘white’? I don’t know and I don’t care; ‘Murcan is an ignoramus. That’s all I need to know.

How varied are the AGW crowd’s predictions? I know there are “the earth is doomed” and “it’s already too late” believers out there but how common are they? Is there a “consensus” on the exact results of any supposed AGW? If everyone in the “consensus” is using the same “science” shouldn’t the results be real similar?

Oh, and Ms.Dalmia, if you’re going to rely on the strength’s of The Economist to make your argument from authority, you should probably check to be sure they aren’t misrepresenting the very source of your proposition that the flattening is significant in ways which it isn’t. Economist takes Hansen out of context. You, in turn, make hay of it, and poorly.

Seriously, if Reason isn’t to have its credibility brought into doubt, you’ll have to do much, much better than this.

Sorry, all you’ve done is reenforce the fact that the predictions are incorrect and the predictors are casting about to explain why. It doesn’t matter; what matters is that the predictions are incorrect and had we based policy on them, we would all be eating rocks seasoned with lichen when we found out the bullshitters were bullshitting. That argues strongly that following draconian measures based on un-proven predictions is a recipe for disaster. You seem to think this is a question of science; it is nothing of the sort. It is an attempted power grab supposedly backed by science; see Ben Kalafut above for an example of mendacity. Do you understand what I’m saying?

All too well. If you were a shill for big energy, I’d know not to waste further time with you. Since I don’t know that, I can only suppose you have an extreme aversion to countering a single fact either presented in my post or linked therefrom. I’ll take science and the citations readily at my disposal (and yours should you wish to click through to Brian Angliss’ excellent series, “Climate Science for Everyone”) over your unsubstantiated contentions any day. Since you seem ill-inclined to respond with facts, I’ll spare us both the trouble of any further response. Dismissed.

I doubt it. Proggies like the current ignoramus really *DO NOT* entertain thoughts other than what is fed to them. Ars is simply one more example of someone capable of using a computer who is incapable of critical thought. Ars found some links that explain why it’s not going that way it was promised to go, and that’s enough. See, oh, King on “Peak Oil”, Ehrlich on “Population Bomb”, and for that matter Malthus. Ignoramuses like Ars continue to provide excuses for charlatans. Religion is hard to argue.

Ah, yes. When lefty ignoramuses get busted on their bullshit, it’s KOCKOPTUPUSSSS! The ‘facts’ you present are ‘well, I can’t see a link’, and ‘here’s someone’s excuse’. Yes, they’re “facts” you idiot. So is ‘well, the floor is dusty’. Now, you moron, show your collection of irrelevancies justify the take over of the economy by the government. No, don’t bother. You’re stupidity is such that I’m not going to waste time on that effort.

Nolan. I just agree… Leslie`s bl0g is really cool, on monday I bought a great new Lotus Esprit after having earned $4034 this-last/4 weeks and in excess of $10k last month. this is definitely my favourite work Ive ever done. I started this 10-months ago and practically straight away startad bringin home over $81, per-hour. I work through this link, http://www.fox86.com

Please note that there is distinction between whetner HEAD START (a preschool program for low income) helps kids in the long run, and whether PRESCHOOL education helps kids in the long run.

This article correctly notes that studies have shown that HEAD START does not have significant long term effects. However, Head Start is only a part of the greater preschool education market – and, one can argue, an inferior one, just as many people believe public education is inferior to private or home education.

That study does not establish that preschool, as a general matter or other specific preschool programs, are not beneficial in the long term.

If you think Valerie`s story is really great…, 5 weaks-ago my friends sister actually earned $8566 workin eleven hours a week from there apartment and the’re classmate’s mother`s neighbour was doing this for 6 months and made more than $8566 part-time from their computer. use the advice from this address, http://www.sea12.com

First off I’m STUNNED bill maher has the audacity to speak his opinion regarding anything; remember he called our US Military “cowards”???!!!!! What an ass, hate him and never watched/listened since…..

When I enrolled into college, full fledged cherokee, single with zero children, I had hell trying to receive any grants/loans etc!! But you could walk to the registrars office babies climbing all over and have any and every amenity including housing, financial aide, grants, housing etc etc etc. how f’ed up bass acwards is this concept???? I managed to get through all their federal hoops for help and from first hand experience and knowledge saw the baby makers handed any and everything on a silver platter. What a cluster indeed. Crazyhorse

there is so much fail in this thread (and some in the article) that’s frankly surprising the internet hasn’t imploded! i’m glad i saw it late, because replying to all this stupid would drive anyone up the wall.

but, one thing i’d like to note: to all those that tout he all line that “global warming warnings are all from computer models, and you can’t trust that cos it’s the work of the devil!” (paraphrase)… well to you i say: no.